The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 forbids hate speech on several grounds. The Act makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend,
insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."[1]
An aggrieved person can lodge a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. If the complaint is validated, the Commission will attempt to conciliate the matter. If the Commission cannot negotiate an agreement which is acceptable to the complainant, the complainant's only redress is through the
Federal Court
or through the Federal Magistrates Service.

In 2002, the Federal Court applied the Act in the case of
Jones v. Toben. The case involved a complaint about a website which contained material that
deniedthe Holocaust. The Federal Court ruled that the material was a violation of the Act.[2]

Section 474.17 of the
Criminal Code Act 1995
makes it an offence to use a carriage service such as the Internet
in a manner which reasonable persons would regard as menacing, harassing or offensive. Federal criminal law, therefore, is available to address racial vilification where the element of threat or harassment is also present, although it does not apply to material that is merely offensive.[3][4]

In 1989, by an amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977,
New South Wales
became the first state to make it unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or group on the grounds of race.[6]
The amendment also created a criminal offence for inciting hatred, contempt or severe ridicule towards a person or group on the grounds of race by threatening physical harm (towards people or their property) or inciting others to threaten such harm. Prosecution of the offence of serious vilification requires consent from the Attorney General of New South Wales and carries a maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine
or 6 months imprisonment
for an individual—$100,000 for a corporation. An offence has not yet been prosecuted under this law.[3]

As of 1994, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 has had various setbacks in its process to handle complaints[7]
such as complaints not being proceeded with due to the lack of evidence in cases and those pursuing the act of discrimination losing interest in their own complaint. Furthermore, due to the nature of discrimination reports in NSW, the Board receives multiple complaints stemming from a single act of vilification[7]
and therefore is required to address each complaint separately which can create dissonance between the resolutions desired by each individual or group.

Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 and amendments create laws that are similar to Tasmania's. In 2001, the Islamic Council of Queensland brought the first action under the Anti-Discrimination Act for victimisation on account of religion. The
Islamic Council
complained that the respondent Mr. Lamb, a candidate in a federal election, had expressed some unfavourable opinions about Muslims
in an electioneering-pamphlet. Walter Sofronoff, for the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, dismissed the action on the ground that Mr. Lamb did not intend to incite hatred or contempt but rather wanted to let the electors know his opinions on political matters.[8]

Unlike other jurisdictions,
Western Australian
law imposes criminal but not civil sanctions against racial vilification. In Western Australia, the Criminal Code was amended in 1989 to criminalise the possession, publication and display of written or pictorial material that is threatening or abusive with the intention of inciting racial hatred
or of harassing a racial group. Penalties range between 6 months and two years imprisonment. It is noteworthy that the Western Australian legislation only addresses written or pictorial information—not verbal comments. The emphasis on written material arose in direct response to the racist poster campaigns of the Australian Nationalist Movement
in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 2004 the Criminal Code Amendment (Racial Vilification) Act 2004 was passed, making racial vilification punishable by 14 years imprisonment.[9][10]

On 1 January 2002,
Victoria
put into effect its Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 which makes religious vilification as well as racial vilification unlawful. Section 8(1) of the Act states:

A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

Note:
"engage in conduct"
includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

Section 11 of the Act provides this concession in favour of freedom of expression:

A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the person establishes that the person's conduct was engaged in reasonably and in good faith—

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for—

(i) any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or

(ii) any purpose that is in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.

In 2004, the
Islamic Council of Victoria
laid a complaint under the Act about the preaching by two Christianpastors. One pastor, a man who had fled
Pakistan
when a charge of blasphemy
was made against him there, was Daniel Scot. The other pastor was
Danny Nalliah. Scot and Nalliah made controversial remarks about
Islam
at a seminar.[11]
On 17 December 2004, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, in the person of Judge Michael Higgins, determined that the pastors had violated the Act. The judge sentenced them to print an apology—drafted by the judge—on their website, in their newsletter, and in eight advertisements appearing in two newspapers. The pastors appealed. The
Supreme Court of Victoria
overturned the Tribunal's decision.[12]
The Court said the Tribunal had no business "attempt[ing] to assess the theological propriety of what was asserted at the Seminar." The Court directed a re-hearing before a different judge. The pastors and the Islamic Council of Victoria prevented a re-hearing by resolving their conflict through mediation
on 22 June 2007.[13]

The
Racial Vilification Act 1996
is similar to the law in New South Wales. In 2002, the Attorney-General's Department released a discussion paper entitled 'Proposal for a new law against religious discrimination and vilification.' Following many objections, no legislation was enacted.

In 2016 the law was amended to include a proscription of actions inciting hatred toward, revulsion of, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or group of people on the ground of any of the following(a) disability; (b) gender identity; (c) HIV/AIDS status; (d) race; (e) religious conviction; (f) sexuality.[14][15]
Prior to the passage of these amendments, religion in particular was not included.